Monday, January 19, 2009

Actually, that was kind of the old policy too. Still, this is a particularly goofy new twist. Yep, critics of the Religion of Pieces are 'non-violent extremists'. So Mark Steyn is just like Mohammed Atta, except for the 'flying airliners into buildings' thing. Also, your family doctor is just like Harold Shipman, except for the whole morphine thing.

Not only is Brandon's point ludicrous on first principles, it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. When Hazel Blear's talks about 'non-violent extremist' Muslims, she's employing achingly PC phraseology to describe those Muslims who fully support terrorism, but aren't actually indulging in it right now. On the other hand, if the left had evidence of Melanie Phillips supporting mass murder, they'd presumably have mentioned it already.

Then again, the whole article reads like a warning about the dangers of riding a bike without a helmet. Jimmy the Dhimmi complains about people referring to Muslims collectively, y'know, kind of like this:

Senior Muslims have warned ministers that some young people could turn to extremism and violence, rather than conventional protest and pressure, because of the Gaza war.

They say ministers have not done enough to explain the UK's position and to help communities sideline jihadist recruiters.

Or perhaps not. Note too that this is no ordinary humbuggery. Leftists are perfectly happy to talk about 'Muslims' collectively when talking about their views on specific policy issues, like exterminating the bacillus of International Jewry bringing peace to the Middle East. All the right does is assume that Muslims follow Islam. True, some nominal 'Muslims' may not actually swallow it whole, but then I bet some members of the Vegetarian Society enjoy a sneaky bacon sandwich, but that doesn't mean we need hours of agonised debate over the meaning of 'true vegetarianism'.

This is what I keep saying. You want to understand Marxism: read Das Kapital. Nazism? Try Mein Kampf. Islam? Nope - you need some wacademic to stop by and explain how the Koran doesn't actually mean what it says. This is why liberal dhimmitude always ends in calls for restricting free speech: Islam does not do well in the light of day.